A friend of mine who went to the recent ARCE conference was telling me about the lectures he had enjoyed. There was one in particular I found quite interesting. It was talking of the "oriental donward tilt" to be seen in Nefertiti's eyes, particularly noticable in the Berlin bust, a trait that seemed to be passed down to later generations. I honestly can say that I never noticed it before it was drawn to my attention, so after reading the article I checked--got an on-line photo of the bust. And sure enough, the inner corner of the eyes is turned down a bit. (even with the one eye missing, the socket is there)
If the mask above is one of her children or even of Tut the relationship is apparent, and if it IS Tut, his parental origins will have to be re-thought! His mother couldn't have been Kiya or Tiye, but must have been Nefertiti.

If the mask above is one of her children or even of Tut the relationship is apparent, and if it IS Tut, his parental origins will have to be re-thought! His mother couldn't have been Kiya or Tiye, but must have been Nefertiti.

In all the Amarna artwork its always Nefertiti and Akhenaten with their daughters, King Tut is never with them. Pointing towards the idea that King Tut was not the son of the queen but a son of another wife.

Quote:

downward tilt" to be seen in Nefertiti's eyes

Characteristic of seen in Amarna art
Kiya's and Tiye's eyes also have that characteristic

Citing the lack of the mention of Tut in connection with Akhenaten and Nefertiti artwork as proof that Tut was not the child of Nefertiti is, at its best, purt conjecture.
Many sons of Pharaoh who went on to become Pharaoh themselfves are not protrayed with their fathers, so a lack of his image does not prove anything at all!
Nefertiti's eyes, while having the downward tilt, also has a slightly heavier lid, typical of Asian features.
During the Amarna period, it seemed to be the artistic license to portray all eyes with a heavier, downturned eye--perhaps as a "compliment" to the queen, Nefertiti?
I personally believe Tut to be Ankhenaten's brother, a child of AIII and one of his wives. True, if so, he would have been born in AIII's old age, but such a thing happening is not impossible, especially if his mother was one of the younger wives.

Joined:Mon May 09, 2005 9:22 amPosts:574Location: The palace of Tutness!

And it begins... *Smacks hands together and rubs them*

*Insert evil laugh here*

I believe Kiya to be the mother of both Tut and Smenkhare. Now, I know some folks believe that Smenkhare was Nefertiti-however!-recently they did a special on the National Geographic Channel about finding Kiya's mummy, which was next to Tiye's. They also did a CT scan (as with the other two) on a male skeleton they found...I think in KV55?

Hawass came to the conclusion that the skeleton could be Akhenaten, but then it could be Smenkhare. Yay conflict resolution, but anywho!

Whatever miracle test they could perform, if it turns out to be indeed Kiya and Smenkhare, they COULD-NOT saying they should-do what they did with Thutmosis I and Hatshepsut...DNA testing. From what I saw in that show it worked out well, and Hatshepsut was finally identified.

But I digress-I tend to do that a lot, smack me if I do it again-Akhenaten was never depicted with his father because of his older brother, Thutmose IV. Same with Tut-Smenkhare was heir to the throne, and so there were more reliefs of him than his little brother. (Be it Smenkhare himself or the Smenkhare-Nefertiti concoction, this was still the case).

But I am a firm believer in that Akhenaten had two sons, just as Amenhotep III did, and the older son dies, leaving the youngest son the throne of Egypt when he himself dies.

...I'm beginning to sense a pattern here...does no one else see it!? O_o

I don't think the reason has ever been explained.
Many peoples in various civilizations have had an attitude very similar, though. It was thought to be bad luck, or to bring the male child's identity to the attention of the gods.

In all the Amarna artwork its always Nefertiti and Akhenaten with their daughters, King Tut is never with them. Pointing towards the idea that King Tut was not the son of the queen but a son of another wife.

Though I agree that Tut was not Nefertiti's son, it was common for only the daughters to be shown in artwork and not the sons, because it symbolized fertility.

There are other examples of this. One that pops into my head is the bird hunting scene from Nebamun's tomb. He's with his daughter and wife, but his son's are not present.

Hmm... What comes to mind is that if a pharaoh had many sons, showing them in paintings and reliefs might have led to power struggle. Many different wives, many sons. There were cases of murdered pharaohs... We may not have heard of all the cases. Maat was important and stories of murdered pharaohs might have been kept secret from the people. To keep up the appearances, so to speak.

If one son or the people around him were very ambitious, and this son was picked up to be the heir, wasn´t there a chance that the father was eliminated so the son could ascend to the throne? Or perhaps the other sons might try to get rid of the chosen son so they would have a chance to get to the throne? This might have been one factor when it comes to showing the sons of the pharaoh in paintings?

How this relates to "ordinary" people´s tomb paintings, and the lack of sons there, I don´t know enough about the inheritance system of old Egypt to comment on that.

Okay going back to the original post, I read a very interesting article that could be the last piece of the "ethnics debate". I forgot his name, but the egyptologist described how going back to Yuya, there could have been asiatic or Mittanian qualities. Like above average height, a beard but no mustache, and some of his titles. Like "Master of the horses." I don't know if this is true but the guy said Egypt didn't natrually have horses. So they got them from Mittani or a foreign asian country. Then another example is his daughter, the prominent Queen Tiye, writes back and forth with Tushratta over Akhenatens statues that were not entirelly solid gold. They were both super powers and yet in the Amarna Letters, they write to each other so casually. So it seems like some kind of relation ship. Also Mitanni people had the 'alien' shaped heads of the amarna royals. So I think Yuya is related like son or cousin or brother of Shuttarna. Then that would make Tiye a cousin or close blood relative of Tushratta. That is why the casual correspondence. Then Nefertiti being Aye's daughter (Aye is Tiye's brother) she has some foreign aspects. Also that could be why Mitanni gave over two princesses. (tadukhipa and gilukhipa) And for the "asiatic/mittanian features)

Thanks, this is interesting! I agree that there seems to be a strong link between Nefertiti and Tutankhamun. I find also Joann Fletchers idea very interesting, that the younger lady of KV 35 might be Nefertiti herself. The latest DNA testing seems to support that the elder lady, possibly Queen Tiye and the younger lady, also King Tut and the mummy found in KV 55 possibly being Akhenaten himself, are all part of same family. Also the fact that the son or sons of Akhenaten did not appear in the "public eye" is pretty obvious I think, the danger of exposure was surely too great. I would think also that the candidates for the position of future pharao would be prepared for this task by the priesthood and not be part of the family life, therefor not shown together with parents and sisters etc

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum